I know, this might seem like a strange statement coming from a game designer who owns a game company. I also admit that it really is not completely true, but I think it’s much more true than people generally think. Also, you might be thinking, wtf is Eric talking about.

Here is what I’m talking about. When you look at a fun/successful game event, where you and everyone else has fun, what percentage of the success or failure of the event was due to the games you played? Or, in related terms, if you have a game club/group who all get together and play a particular game, how much does that central game actually matter in the success and fun that club has as a group?

I actually think it’s relatively little actually, and the success is made up of so many other factors, that the game is just kind of the excuse to get those other factors all in one place. For the most part, those factors are people, and the mood and personalities they bring with them. If you’re filling your game table/group with “that guy” I don’t think that you will ever have fun, no matter what game you decide to break out. Conversely, if you have a great group of people, all coming together in a good mood, it would be hard to have a bad gaming experience.

Think about what the game actually provides to the event or club.

1) Rules complexity
Basically, rules CAN get in the way of having fun, or can cause a lot of conflict that will keep a club from running smoothly. These are things that can get in the way of a good time. But honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say, “those rules were so cleanly written, just reading through them or explaining them really made the evening fun”

2) Setting
The setting for the game can create a great mood for people, and often the gaming experience is enhanced by a compelling setting or storyline, etc… However, the setting more often than not is what people enjoy on their own, and what attracts them to the game in the first place, and fill their reading/imagination time. Ultimately it generally has relatively little effect on people when they are playing the game itself.

3) Limitations on players who can participate at once
This is another one that can get in the way more than anything. If you have a gathering of 2 people and only have 3+ player games, or vice versa. Basically a game can simply not fit, but this in no way really makes an event, the game can just be not appropriate for the event.

4) A challenge to overcome
The last, and probably most important thing a game does is present for all the players a challenge, which they either overcome cooperatively, or competitively depending on the game. It basically gives them something to do! The common challenge is kind of what makes game nights, or game clubs tick. However, the challenge is something that basically all games offer in some form or another.

So what does the game really bring? I guess it brings a context to an event or club, and other than that, you just want to find a game that does as much as it can to stay out of the way, since things like complexity or player limitations only really get in the way. The game provides a reason to get together, and a reason to interact with friends, or to meet new people. And those are all great things, but it’s not what causes people to actually have fun.

What causes people to actually have fun, is actually the people who they now have a context to interact with. Games are in many ways just the excuse to get together, and have meaningful interactions with other people over an extended period of time. As long as the game isn’t getting in the way, causing disputes, or excluding people, it’s doing it’s job doing nothing more than that. In fact, games that fail are ones that tend to want to “get in the way” more, and force specific types of interactions, or force an unnatural focus on what the rules say to do. Similarly, people who focus too intently on the game itself, ignoring the fact they could be having fun with other people, are missing the point a little bit.

So why are there SO many games and why do we like to play so many different one? If they don’t matter, shouldn’t we be fine with just a few?
Well, yes and no. I do think there are way more games than there needs to be, but hey, we live in an competitive world, so this is how it happens. But we also need many games specifically because they provide different criteria (setting and number of players), and a variety of challenge. The variety lets the people have a different set of motivations and reasons to interact.

Ok, so I admit it, games DO matter, but just not nearly as much as I tend to see people think they matter. But when I see friends break up over disagreements over games…or entire game groups basically disband because they don’t like something that happened with their game, I think people are missing the point.
The point is that the game did provide a context, but that isn’t what made thinks work. It’s the people! Enjoy the people! Don’t focus so much on the game, just let it do it’s job in the background.

3 thoughts on “The Game Doesn’t Matter”

Very true Eric! One of the big reasons for me switching to tabletop games was to get away from anonymous detached jerk on the other side of the interwebs, they where ruining the fun and social aspects of online gaming for me. When you are at the table with that guy he can’t be a total jerk across the table.
Thank you again for your onsite.

In regards to RPG there are a lot of similarities. In essence the game you play shouldn’t matter. It’s all make-believe, and the game system shouldn’t matter. In fact, you could play without a system! My experience is, though, that it does! Why? Because the game makes the fluff/setting with the rules. Sure there are multiple ways to solve anything but some distract you from the game, others pull you in. Prime example for me is D&D (3.5 or 4); the game is so focussed on combat, that it’s an uphill battle to focus on social interactions and not let everything degenerate to hack ‘n slash.

As for Malifaux: at my local club it’s the #1 played game now. First positive is tha we actually settled on a game that is played a lot. Before we would have a dosen or so miniature systems played, each with 1.5 player. Games where hard to come by, and you couldn’t really get nto the game as battles with the same system where far in between.
Now I do think some elements from Malifaux help it to be as succesful as it is, something that we couldn’t replicate with 40k or Fantasy. And boy, sure I tried that! Malifaux has good fluff and a fitting game system for it, is accessable for newer and younger players but also has enough depth.

So in short for your points:
1 Rules Complexity: agree it doesn’t really contribute.
2 Setting: actually matters! A lot for RPG’s.
3 # of players: matters for some games, not for others. I would say it doesn’t really weigh in.
4 challenge to overcome: matters a lot. Games that lack depth or are too easy are discarded after a few plays in my area of gaming.

Eric, We all have groups that become our friends which means the games played are less important. Having fun is the point of playing and getting together

The true test is when differences of opinions show the true heart of friendship. For instance the people you play with for years decide since you don’t have the same opinion that you are no longer needed and the trust that was built is gone. All of the sharing and excitement to see the new stuff coming out all of a sudden becomes the one thing that then gets turned against you that all have been doing for years.

So is it really friendship that you have in your group or the game? You really can’t tell gamers are a whole different breed.